Jump to content


Photo

The Defeat Of Flood Geology By Flood Geology(?)

Flood Geology Young Earth

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
97 replies to this topic

#1 jd3020

jd3020

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 24 February 2012 - 10:48 AM

I'm sure the title got everyones attention. Some have probably read this article authored by Phil Senter from the NCSE.

I'm a new believer and the Genesis flood is one of the most difficult biblical stories for me to comprehend. I was raised in a Darwinian old-earth public education system and have always believed in an old-earth. :snapoutofit: However, I'm open to a young-earth creation. Since I am still a infant believer, one day I will read some arguments for a young-earth and think it makes sense. Then the next day I will find an article like the one I have linked and think a young-earth is not possible. I have read some of the topics on the forum, but I can't commit to a young-earth creation. It seems like YECs do not have a comprehensive and cohesive explanation for Flood Geology. I would like to hear some thoughtful responses to the article. Please be gentle with me! :)

Here is the link to the article. Click on "DOWNLOAD THIS PDF FILE" below the box.

http://reports.ncse....icle/view/44/36

#2 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:37 PM

I'm sure the title got everyones attention. Some have probably read this article authored by Phil Senter from the NCSE.

I'm a new believer and the Genesis flood is one of the most difficult biblical stories for me to comprehend. I was raised in a Darwinian old-earth public education system and have always believed in an old-earth. :snapoutofit: However, I'm open to a young-earth creation. Since I am still a infant believer, one day I will read some arguments for a young-earth and think it makes sense. Then the next day I will find an article like the one I have linked and think a young-earth is not possible. I have read some of the topics on the forum, but I can't commit to a young-earth creation. It seems like YECs do not have a comprehensive and cohesive explanation for Flood Geology. I would like to hear some thoughtful responses to the article. Please be gentle with me! :)

Here is the link to the article. Click on "DOWNLOAD THIS PDF FILE" below the box.

http://reports.ncse....icle/view/44/36


That's a lot to try and respond to. Could you please just give one or two arguments from the document and we can try and go down the list? I hope some more people will join me, because I'm certainly not an expert, but I think that the Bible should be your absolute standard. Even if we don't completely understand how the flood affected the earth's surface, the Scriptures, that come from God who can't lie, says that there was a global flood and if you add up the dates in the Scriptures that were given by that God, they come to about 6000 years for the age of the earth. If those things aren't true, how can we be sure that Christ really did die and come back to life, like the Bible says.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 February 2012 - 04:21 PM

I'm sure the title got everyones attention. Some have probably read this article authored by Phil Senter from the NCSE.

I'm a new believer and the Genesis flood is one of the most difficult biblical stories for me to comprehend. I was raised in a Darwinian old-earth public education system and have always believed in an old-earth. :snapoutofit: However, I'm open to a young-earth creation. Since I am still a infant believer, one day I will read some arguments for a young-earth and think it makes sense. Then the next day I will find an article like the one I have linked and think a young-earth is not possible. I have read some of the topics on the forum, but I can't commit to a young-earth creation. It seems like YECs do not have a comprehensive and cohesive explanation for Flood Geology. I would like to hear some thoughtful responses to the article. Please be gentle with me! :)

Here is the link to the article. Click on "DOWNLOAD THIS PDF FILE" below the box.

http://reports.ncse....icle/view/44/36


First understand that the flood happened quickly as not only for the rain but the fountains of the deep AKA all the water under the earth's crust came up. The thing I find first in the article which I have not read completely through is the usual bit about the order of the geological column. And that it is supposed to solely support evolultion. The problems I see right off the bat is three fold.

1) Living fossils.
2) Complexity.
3) How the layering matches the habitats of all ocean life.

The fossil record is supposed to be a record of time, right? Yet out of all the living fossils found 99% of them are not found in any other layer that supports that they survived until now. The worst of them is the sea pen. Found in the very bottom layer yet is missing in every other layer above it but yet is still found alive, The fossil record did not record it's survival like it did not for 100% of the 30 plus known living fossils.

The trilobite is found in the bottom layer and is very complex. It has fully formed and finctioning organs and complete systems. There is no evolution tree to it showing how it evolved just that poof it appeared with all it's complexity.

The order of how ocean life is laid out is the very same as the order of how ocean life lives in the ocean. First comes bottom dwellers. Then comes the mid dwellers. Then top dwellers. For the flood to happen as fast as it did, it would have buried any aquatic animals right where they lived in the oceans. This is because alot of sediments came up with the sudden gush of water from underneath the earth. So aquatic life got buried right where they lived in the ocean and that is exactly what we see. Because if you remove the layers and leave the aquatic life in place then add water. You would see that is exactly where they lived. So they lived and died in the same spot which does not explain the time-line for evolution because there is no mechanism or process that would allow such a match up. Nothing. And if there is then I would challenge a evolutionist here to show us.

And while I'm at it I'll add these as well:

Then we have where enough water has been found to flood the whole earth to the highest mountain (30 oceans worth): http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=294
How there is really not that much difference in the wear of the Grand Canyon top to bottom in 5 million years: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=301

And the last but not least is that water will sort layers. Old earthers have yet to show a process or mechanism that does this that takes as much time as claimed. Nothing, Zero. But yet they just think we should accept it because they say it happened?

Seems to me the old earthers have a much bigger problem. Why?

1) We have the water for the flood of the whole earth.
2) We have the fossil record of living fossils that proves that water sorting laid it and not a record of time and survival.
3) We have the order of the sorting which matches exactly to a quick burial during a flood by burying each equatic animal in their living habitat.
4) We have complexity found in the lowest layer in which totally destroys the gradual change from simple to complex. And it also destroys the evolution tree because there is no life below that layer to record how that complexity evolved in the lowest layer in the first place.
5) We have the mechanism (water) that sorts layers of sediment just as you see in the geologic column. The old earthers have no mechanism. Nothing.

As far as causes for the flood. During the creation:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

No atmosphere existed yet. So we have water that is being exposed to the conditions of space and only gravity to hold it onto the planet. So let's look at what will happen.
1) Space is a vacuum. Water in a vacuum will boil at any temperature.
2) Space is absolute zero. So water will try to boil and freeze at the same time.
3) Ice is effected by magnetic fields. If you take a ice cube tie it to a string and pass a fairly strong magnet underneath it will move.

So we have water here trying to be 3 things at the same time (solid, liquid, and gas). Which is also known as a water's triple point. So water boils becomes a mist that freezes and is effected by the magnetic field then comes together to create a semi solid canopy. How? This was happening around the whole earth at the same time. So the frozen ice crystals would come together as a huge magnet. This magnet would have such extreme pressures that it would create what is known as "metallic hydrogen". And because metallic hydrogen is considered a super conductor the "mysner effect" would help it be suspended above us.

The pressures would separate most of the oxygen molecules from the hydrogen to make the metallic hydrogen and the oxygen molecules left would create the ozone layer we now see. Why it's not there anymore is that a meteor hit it and made it come down. this started the flood. And there is evidence of a meteor hit in our past history. High barometric pressures cause the boiling point of water to be higher as well. So when the barometric pressures fell due to the canopy falling from a meteor strike the boiling point dropped causing steam pockets in the earth;s crust to form which made the water burst out from underground.

But while the canopy was there let's look at the conditions.

1) Because it was being supported by the atmosphere, it's weight would create a higher barometric pressure then what we observe today. And because it's weight would be distributed evenly. It would only increase the barometric pressure by as much as double what we currently observe.
2) Higher barometric pressures would explain why it never rained. With the conditions and temperatures of this planet the barometric pressures have to be what they are now to allow rain clouds to form. Back then those conditions did not exist as to the reason they had never seen rain and laughed at Noah.
3) Higher barometric pressures also explain how people lived so long back then. It has been recently found out that hyperbaric oxygen treatments (AKA HBOT) helps the body to heal itself of things thought that there was no cure for. You can find out more here: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=217

And I could go on and on with this stuff. The flood answers more questions then it raises, Solves more problems then it creates. Has observable mechanisms for layering, and has all the needed water to do it.

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:05 PM

Hi, jd3020.

First of all, who was the father of geology? Nicolas Steno believed in a global flood for his entire life and only one of his geologic laws has been recently proven to not be true in all circumstances.

Watch this video:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=79188

An OE interpretation of geology has added nothing to the science...yes, that's correct...not one single law in the entire science of geology is accredited to them nor in the science of biology.


Enjoy.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:28 AM

I wonder where jd3020 went? I mean he starts a thread then leaves?

#6 Chris

Chris

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:00 AM

Might have the same problem I do ...no internet at home. I log in at work. Some weeks we have 5 straight days off, so I disappear. Then back for 5 days on.

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:10 PM

Might have the same problem I do ...no internet at home. I log in at work. Some weeks we have 5 straight days off, so I disappear. Then back for 5 days on.


Very true, I am sure there are few people who live their lives just to converse on here :)


Admittedly I do sometimes due to lack of things to occupy me lol

#8 jd3020

jd3020

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:20 AM

I wonder where jd3020 went? I mean he starts a thread then leaves?


Sorry, I've been busy. Thanks for all of the responses.

One arguement the paper makes is the evidence of subaerially deposited basalts.

Last paragraph on page four:
"Basalt, a type of volcanic rock, can be deposited subaerially or under water. Unlike basalts
that are deposited under water, continental basalts (basalts that are deposited subaerially)
exhibit laterally widespread flow, columnar jointing, and a lack of pillow structures.
Nevins (1971, 1974) noted that continental basalts are present in a number of Cenozoic
formations in North America including the Eocene Clarno Formation, the Oligocene John
Day Formation, the Miocene Columbia River Group, and the Pliocene and Pleistocene Mesa
basalt. Garner (1996a) noted that such basalt flows are present at the Paleozoic–Mesozoic
boundary and are stratigraphically and geographically widespread through Mesozoic and
Cenozoic strata. He also noted that continental basalt flows are present in Proterozoic and
Cambrian strata."

How does a YEC explain continental basalts?

#9 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:09 PM

Sorry, I've been busy. Thanks for all of the responses.

One arguement the paper makes is the evidence of subaerially deposited basalts.

Last paragraph on page four:
"Basalt, a type of volcanic rock, can be deposited subaerially or under water. Unlike basalts
that are deposited under water, continental basalts (basalts that are deposited subaerially)
exhibit laterally widespread flow, columnar jointing, and a lack of pillow structures.
Nevins (1971, 1974) noted that continental basalts are present in a number of Cenozoic
formations in North America including the Eocene Clarno Formation, the Oligocene John
Day Formation, the Miocene Columbia River Group, and the Pliocene and Pleistocene Mesa
basalt. Garner (1996a) noted that such basalt flows are present at the Paleozoic–Mesozoic
boundary and are stratigraphically and geographically widespread through Mesozoic and
Cenozoic strata. He also noted that continental basalt flows are present in Proterozoic and
Cambrian strata."

How does a YEC explain continental basalts?


Great point and I'm glad you brought that one up.

Posted Image

If you look closely, you will see basalt in the precambrian of the Grand Canyon, but it completely stops for hundreds of millions of years and begins to flow again in the cenozoic over the top of the canyon. There is not only no evidence of basalt between the flood layers, but there is also no topography present indicating long periods of erosion or weathering either.

Posted Image

Creationists do not date strata by the fossils they contain. So, a cross section of the strata is necessary to determine it's relation to the flood layers. It was a time of accelerated tectonic activity, and there are some instances of ash layers and lava in the flood lasyers, but they are very thin layers compared to long term free flows seen above the flood layers and they also lack any evience of erosion or weathering, so they were likely deposited and covered by strata much quicker than current rates.


Enjoy.

#10 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:24 PM

Sorry, I've been busy. Thanks for all of the responses.

One arguement the paper makes is the evidence of subaerially deposited basalts.

Last paragraph on page four:
"Basalt, a type of volcanic rock, can be deposited subaerially or under water. Unlike basalts
that are deposited under water, continental basalts (basalts that are deposited subaerially)
exhibit laterally widespread flow, columnar jointing, and a lack of pillow structures.
Nevins (1971, 1974) noted that continental basalts are present in a number of Cenozoic
formations in North America including the Eocene Clarno Formation, the Oligocene John
Day Formation, the Miocene Columbia River Group, and the Pliocene and Pleistocene Mesa
basalt. Garner (1996a) noted that such basalt flows are present at the Paleozoic–Mesozoic
boundary and are stratigraphically and geographically widespread through Mesozoic and
Cenozoic strata. He also noted that continental basalt flows are present in Proterozoic and
Cambrian strata."

How does a YEC explain continental basalts?

I agree with what jason777 pointed out. Consider that, during the flood, some parts of land would have probably been exposed for periods of time, and then covered with sediments. Volcanoes could be erupting and laying down basalt subaerially while land is still exposed and then have a wave come in and deposit sediments on top of it. There would have been regressions and transgressions going on because of the tectonic activity.

#11 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 28 February 2012 - 01:44 AM

I'm sure the title got everyones attention. Some have probably read this article authored by Phil Senter from the NCSE. I'm a new believer and the Genesis flood is one of the most difficult biblical stories for me to comprehend. I was raised in a Darwinian old-earth public education system and have always believed in an old-earth. :snapoutofit: However, I'm open to a young-earth creation. Since I am still a infant believer, one day I will read some arguments for a young-earth and think it makes sense. Then the next day I will find an article like the one I have linked and think a young-earth is not possible. I have read some of the topics on the forum, but I can't commit to a young-earth creation. It seems like YECs do not have a comprehensive and cohesive explanation for Flood Geology. I would like to hear some thoughtful responses to the article. Please be gentle with me! :) Here is the link to the article. Click on "DOWNLOAD THIS PDF FILE" below the box. http://reports.ncse....icle/view/44/36


I personally restrict the flood to the Permian-Triassic boundary. You will note that most of his points are concerning a "cretaceous" flood that explains the dinosaur extinctions as well. I do not see how a flood would explain all the layers considering it was only for one year.

It makes sense to relate the greatest biblical death event with the greatest evidence of extinctions, the Permian extiction event. It is no co-incidence that conditions before the Permian extiction were ideal for life (moist, oxygenated) and conditions before the biblical flood were ideal (long life-spans). At the Permian extinction the earth became hot and arid according to scientists, and the earth was full of flood silt and no vegetation according to flood logic.

Additionally the Siberian Traps would by their very nature have created worldwide flooding even if complete submergence of earth cannot be proven. You had a reduction in ocean size due to the basalt flows into the northern oceans displacing oceans and causing ocean levels to rise. There was intense precipitation caused by the most intense volcanic period in history, volcanoes cause torrential downpours of rain and hail. And the ice caps melted from all the heat caused by the Siberian Traps, causing ocean levels to rise. Combine all these with low lying continents with low-lying coastal wetlands and low-lying continental flood plains and you have a recipe for flood disaster. It has been shown that the flood plains inexplicably changed form a sedimentary underfill situation across most continents to an overfill situation during the P-T boundary, showing huge sedimentary deposits across earth in these flood-plains. All-in-all the fossils and geology seem to show a flood restricted to the P-T extinction event.

Since then the earliest post-flood civilisations show a proliferation of dinosaurs in their pottery, showing that dinosaurs were concurrent with the early 2000BC civilisations. Dinosaurs appear to be post-flood and the majority died off just before mammals dominated about 3000 years ago.

Here's an interesting article, with a few facts, truth or fiction?
http://joelg.wrytestuff.com/swa791121-Did-Ancient-People-Believe-That-Dinosaurs-Were-Their-Contemporaries.htm

#12 jd3020

jd3020

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:44 PM

First of all, who was the father of geology? Nicolas Steno believed in a global flood for his entire life and only one of his geologic laws has been recently proven to not be true in all circumstances.


I thought OEs use Sterno's theories as support for an OE, i.e. principal of original horizontality and Steno's law of superposition? Doesn't the principal of original horizontality contradict the video you posted?

Also, how do YECs explain human remains found only in the top layer of stratum?
Thanks,

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 February 2012 - 12:17 AM

I thought OEs use Sterno's theories as support for an OE, i.e. principal of original horizontality and Steno's law of superposition? Doesn't the principal of original horizontality contradict the video you posted?

Also, how do YECs explain human remains found only in the top layer of stratum?
Thanks,


It would seem that this has turned into a one sided debate. We address what you say but you ignore what we say. This will turn into a very short debate if this is the way you are going to handle this.

Why do you have to address what people say? Because when you don't you are basically telling the other members here that their efforts mean nothing to you and you won't address them. So what's the point of posting in this thread if it's going to be that way?

#14 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:36 AM

Sorry, I've been busy. Thanks for all of the responses.

One arguement the paper makes is the evidence of subaerially deposited basalts.

Last paragraph on page four:
"Basalt, a type of volcanic rock, can be deposited subaerially or under water. Unlike basalts
that are deposited under water, continental basalts (basalts that are deposited subaerially)
exhibit laterally widespread flow, columnar jointing, and a lack of pillow structures.
Nevins (1971, 1974) noted that continental basalts are present in a number of Cenozoic
formations in North America including the Eocene Clarno Formation, the Oligocene John
Day Formation, the Miocene Columbia River Group, and the Pliocene and Pleistocene Mesa
basalt. Garner (1996a) noted that such basalt flows are present at the Paleozoic–Mesozoic
boundary and are stratigraphically and geographically widespread through Mesozoic and
Cenozoic strata. He also noted that continental basalt flows are present in Proterozoic and
Cambrian strata."

How does a YEC explain continental basalts?


A YEC with a view that most geologic layers are flood-based must believe in intermittent basalt flows during the flood. I would say that's unrealistic especially as you point out some of those flows are land-based. That is one of the many reasons why I restrict flood geology to the P-T boundary.

#15 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:14 AM

A YEC with a view that most geologic layers are flood-based must believe in intermittent basalt flows during the flood. I would say that's unrealistic especially as you point out some of those flows are land-based. That is one of the many reasons why I restrict flood geology to the P-T boundary.


Considering everything else concerning the flood this is the best argument you guys can come up with? And I doubt anything I say or anyone else on this issue will be taken seriously. It's already been made more than clear that a previous post of mine in here cannot be addressed. So what's the point of this thread if most everything said that cannot be addressed gets ignored?

#16 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:52 AM

Considering everything else concerning the flood this is the best argument you guys can come up with? And I doubt anything I say or anyone else on this issue will be taken seriously. It's already been made more than clear that a previous post of mine in here cannot be addressed. So what's the point of this thread if most everything said that cannot be addressed gets ignored?


Sorry, I normally don't read all the posts in these threads, I was focussing on jd3020's posts.

Regarding your post, I thought jd3020 was referring mainly to other places in the world, not just the Grand Canyon. Places where basaltic flows, both small and large, interrupt the sedimentary sequence at various stages of the "flood" sequence.

#17 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 29 February 2012 - 03:45 AM

I thought OEs use Sterno's theories as support for an OE, i.e. principal of original horizontality and Steno's law of superposition? Doesn't the principal of original horizontality contradict the video you posted?

Also, how do YECs explain human remains found only in the top layer of stratum?
Thanks,


I thought OEs use Sterno's theories as support for an OE, i.e. principal of original horizontality and Steno's law of superposition? Doesn't the principal of original horizontality contradict the video you posted?

Also, how do YECs explain human remains found only in the top layer of stratum?
Thanks,


I don't see why those principals couldn't have also been in effect.

Steno didn't see the problem either:

"Steno believed in the universal flood throughout his life ... "

- Gary D. Rosenberg, "Nicholas Steno's Chaos and the shaping of evolutionary thought in the Scientific Revolution," Geology 34(9):793-796, (September 2006); http://geology.geosc.../9/793.abstract

I guess the video is useful for showing that his principals aren't always the rule.
---------------
About the human remains, in Glen Rose, Texas, human footprints have been found next to and on top of dinosaur footprints. The track trails sometimes overlap.

One explanation offered is that they were carved. A portion of one trail of human footprints, known as the Taylor Trail, had already been revealed at the time the carved explanation was made. After the carved explanation was made, they uncovered the rest of the trail under about six feet of clay and limestone and found seven more footprints. The process involved a bulldozer removing tons of limestone overburden, effectively eliminating the possibility that the tracks were carved. A total of fourteen tracks now make up the Taylor Trail.

Here's a picture of the bulldozer removing the limestone: http://www.bible.ca/...n-bulldozer.jpg

Here's a picture of the complete Taylor Trail: http://www.bible.ca/...ylor-all-14.jpg

Carving would randomly cut across the internal rock structures. If the footprints were genuine, those internal rock structures would follow the contours of the footprint and show that pressure had been placed on the ground by someone walking or running when the track was made. The Burdick Track footprint was sawn across the heel and toes and the inner rock structures followed the contours of the footprint.

Here's a picture of the cross-section of the heel of the Burdick Track: http://www.bible.ca/...ection-heel.jpg

Here's a picture of the cross-section of the big toe of the Burdick Track: http://www.bible.ca/...n-great-toe.jpg

Carved footprints do not look like any of the footprints found in Glen Rose.

Here's a picture of a carved footprint: http://omniology.com...arvedTrack.html

Here's a picture of the Morris Track footprint from Glen Rose: http://omniology.com...sFootPrint.html

Completely different. Once that idea became untenable, another explanation was developed by Glen Kuban. He said that vertically elongated dinosaur footprints eroded to look like human footprints.

Here is an illustration of Glen's theory: http://omniology.com...anDrawings.html

Footprint -3B of the Taylor Trail shows a clear human print with toes, over the edge of a dinosaur footprint and not the heel as predicted in Kuban's model.

Here's a picture of footprint -3B from the Taylor Trail: http://www.bible.ca/...lor-3b-java.htm

The fact that both heels are visible in this picture show that this is not an incompletely registered dinosaur track.

When you put your foot in most of these footprints, they fit perfectly.

Here's a picture of someone putting their foot in footprint +5 from the Taylor Trail: http://www.bible.ca/...ylor+5-foot.jpg

Most tracks are very detailed and do not look anything like an eroded dinosaur footprint:

Here's a video of Ian Juby authenticating the Delk Track footprint using a medical CT scanner:



Here's a picture of the Morris Track footprint: http://omniology.com...sFootPrint.html

Here's a picture of a cast of footprint +1 from the Taylor Trail: http://www.bible.ca/...1-cast-1970.jpg

The tracks from the Taylor Trail form a perfect sequence and there's just no way that chance erosion can produce this:

Posted Image
http://www.bible.ca/...aylor-trail.htm

For more information on these tracks, check out: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
---------------
The Laetoli footprints are clearly human and supposed to be 3.6 million years old:

"A study of the footprints, reported here, has shown that when these hominids walked, they transmitted their body weight and the forces of propulsion to the ground in a manner very similar to that of modern man ... The remarkable similarities between the modern human footprint contour patterns and those of the fossil hominids can be seen at a glance."
- Day, M.H. and Wickens, E.H., "Laetoli Pliocene hominid footprints and bipedalism," Nature 286:385-386, (1980).

"Make no mistake about it, they are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year-old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that someone had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same. There is a well-shaped modern heel with a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front of it. The big toe is straight in line. It doesn't stick out to the side like an ape toe, or like the big toe in so many drawings you see of Australopithecines in books."
- Tim White, quoted in: Johanson, Donald C. and Edey, Maitland A., Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Penguin, London, p. 250, (1981)

"In discernible features, the Laetoli G prints are indistinguishable from those of habitually barefoot Homo sapiens."
- Russel H. Tuttle, American Journal of Physical Anthropolgy 78(2):316 (1989). See also his article in Natural History, pp. 60-65, (March 1990).

"Casts of Laetoli G-1 and of Machiguenga footprints in moist, sandy soil further illustrate the remarkable humanness of Laetoli hominid feet in all detectable morphological features."
- Russel H. Tuttle, Webb, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Supplement, p.175, (1991).

"The prints show that whoever made them had a humanlike foot arch ...

To get a toehold on the Laetoli problem, the researchers first compared the gaits of modern humans walking on sand with two sets of the fossil tracks. This analysis confirmed that the ancient footprints were left by individuals who had a striding bipedal gait very much like that of people today."
- Kate Wong, Footprints to Fill, Scientific American, pp.18-19, (August 1, 2005), http://www.scientifi...tprints-to-fill

" ... early australopithecines ... [had] relatively long, curved fingers and toes."
- Brian G. Richmond and David S. Strait, "Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776), (23 March 2000), http://home.gwu.edu/...mond&Strait.pdf
---------------
Human footrprints have been found in Carboniferous rock (scroll down past the videos to read more): http://ianjuby.org/newsletter/?p=525
---------------
in 1990, near La Sal, Utah, eight human fossils were found buried about 50 feet down in a layer of rock that also contains dinosaur fossils.

Information can be found here: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm

They contain no collagen, which typically takes about 1000 years to dissipate.

One explanation offered is that these people were mining and the mine collapsed and buried them, but no obvious tools or artifacts were found associated with the fossils. Additionally, there are no crushed bones which would be expected if the mine caved in.

Another explanation offered is that they were buried in a grave, but if this were true, the living would have had to dig a grave through extremely hard sandstone layers. The modern mining operation was halted in the 1970's because the rock was so hard it was destroying the bulldozers.

Here are two pictures of the fossils in the rock: http://www.bible.ca/...ed-skeleton.jpg

http://www.bible.ca/...90-leg-knee.jpg
---------------
I'm not so sure about this next case, but it's been reported that an intact modern human skeleton was found in Guadaloupe, in limestone beneath strata that contains 3 million-year-old coral.
http://www.archive.o...iltrans09134932
http://www.science-f...40/sf040p12.htm
---------------
Tools like mortars and pestles have been found in pliocene rock:
http://www.creationh.../EarlyMan.shtml
---------------
Dr. Javier Cabrera wrote that he found part of a fossilized human backbone in the same layer as dinosaur fossils. All we have is this guy's word though.

"In the desert of Ocucaje a few kilometers from the original deposit where the engraved stones of Ica were found, I have discovered a paleontologic measure set in sedimentary rock from the superior cretaceous period of the Mesozoic geological era. It was here I began looking for fossils in this very rich measure in a systematic way and in accordance with the time and money I had available. On October 14, 1984 I found a section of sedimentary strata in which there was a number of fossilized animal and vegetable specimens from Mesozoic fauna, and flora.

Suddenly and with great surprise, I found part of a backbone - a dorsolumbar with its iliac bones that belonged to a human being similar to the man of our day, nearby were three incomplete heads and fragments of a dinosaur backbone belonging to the triceratops species, close to these I found egg specimens, sections of skin of dinosaurs of different species, and an almost complete skeleton of a phitosaur (archaic reptile similar to the crocodile) equally fossilized!" - Javier Cabrera, The Message of the Engraved Stones of Ica; http://www.labyrinth...om/cabrera2.htm
---------------
There have been a lot more things reported out there that I haven't had the chance to look into, but also consider that 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish. Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. The vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them. For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100. Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there’s only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!

That's what you'd expect from the flood. Most land creatures made it to the surface and rotted away.

I also tend to think that most of the humans were smart enough to get in boats or get on things that they could float on. Then they would have died of starvation or disease from eating rotting corpse and rotted on the surface or been eaten by other creatures (e.g., flying creature that hadn't died yet, and surviving marine creatures). Also, I read that mammals bloat and float to the surface when they drown.

For more information, I'd suggest reading:
http://creation.com/...k/chapter15.pdf
http://creation.com/...e-human-fossils

#18 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 29 February 2012 - 04:10 AM

A YEC with a view that most geologic layers are flood-based must believe in intermittent basalt flows during the flood. I would say that's unrealistic especially as you point out some of those flows are land-based. That is one of the many reasons why I restrict flood geology to the P-T boundary.


Why is it unrealistic to have land exposed in some locations while the water is rising? If the earth's crust is moving around, because of the fountains of the deep, then water is going to sometimes flow off of the land and have to rise back up to that height.

"The springs of the abyss and the crevices of the heavens were held in check. The waters were returning off the earth, going and returning, and at the end of a hundred fifty days the waters were abating." (Genesis 8:2,3)

The "going and returning" sounds like the water is regressing and transgressing over the land as the water is being drained, which I would assume is due to the mountains ascending and the valleys descending (Psalm 104:8). Not that this water movement didn't occur throughout the flood.

#19 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:38 AM

Why is it unrealistic to have land exposed in some locations while the water is rising? If the earth's crust is moving around, because of the fountains of the deep, then water is going to sometimes flow off of the land and have to rise back up to that height.
.

I guess its possible, but just doesn't gel with what I think is a likely scenario. This continuous transgression and regression during the flood is just not how I see the biblical description or how such a massive flood would react. My general argument is that each layer shows not only specific fossils, but also an entire environment suited to that category of fossils, and this is hard to explain from the current creationist flood model. For example, fossilised in and under the basalt of the Siberian traps can be seen an entire environment that had high oxygen, high moisture, low co2 , and low methane levels. The life-forms were prospering under these conditions. After the massive basalt flows of the Siberian Traps, the atmosphere is seen to be low oxygen, low moisture, high co2, high methane and the predominant fossils are suited to the dryer environment and show signs of battling to re-establish themselves. Now this could be all written off as evolutionist assumptions, but the evidence of those environments and the evidence of those fossils does exist. So it could be merely co-incidental that the flood drowned the moist preferring fauna/flora first and then there were massive basalt flow during the actual flood spreading for nearly 4 000 000 km2 and then the flood deposited dry-land fossils. My instinct for projecting probabilities just will not allow for that scenario. Frankly I just don't buy it, its an extreme stretch of any logical man's imagination to have these two entire environments below and above these massive basalt flows being explained away by flood deposition. I am a complete bible literalist and believe the earth was filled with fast fossilising swamplands before the flood, and the flood covered over these pre-flood peat formations that are now coal. That is why you can see the trees still rooted into the pre-flood swamp seat earth. For 1700 years peat was forming throughout the world, then the flood came and covered over this during the so-called P-T boundary, caused by the Siberian traps. After the flood small reptiles and mammals dominated , those that suited the difficult dry oxygen starved environment, until the atmosphere and oxygen thickened to such an extent that these creatures micro-evolved into massive sizes (post-flood dinosaurs). Then there was that comet that caused such earth destruction that entire civilisations like the Old Kingdom of Egypt were wiped out, the world became oxygen starved again, and most large animals were destroyed in the cometary impact. Small mammals survived best, but also micro-evolved into larger mammals filing the environmental gaps left by the near extinct dinosaurs. To me this explains the flood better, and according to biblical facts of a world of long life-spans existing for 1700 years before the flood and leaving behind a fossil record. Plus the evidence for the flood all exists at the P-T boundary.

"The springs of the abyss and the crevices of the heavens were held in check. The waters were returning off the earth, going and returning, and at the end of a hundred fifty days the waters were abating." (Genesis 8:2,3)

The "going and returning" sounds like the water is regressing and transgressing over the land as the water is being drained, which I would assume is due to the mountains ascending and the valleys descending (Psalm 104:8). Not that this water movement didn't occur throughout the flood


I'm not sure what translation you are using , but the most common translations are more like this:

1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:42 AM

A lot of evolution is likely impossible but many believe it anyway.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Flood Geology, Young Earth

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users